Zakef Rules
189 views
Skip to first unread message
MG
Jun 9, 2010, 2:50:27 PM6/9/10
to leining
As I said I would do earlier, I am posting the rules for when a word
gets a zakef katon with meteg vs. zakef katon with munach vs. stand-
alone zakef katon vs. zakef gadol vs. pashta-zakef gadol (metigah).
There's been some speculation on here as to why certain words get one
or the other and some suggestions have been made, but this is how the
rules are laid out by Hanau.
The first thing to note is that all of these notes are on the same
level with respect to punctuation; they are all equal in stature as
mafsikim.
If a word needs to receive a zakef, then:
A) IF the word can receive a meteg, we place a munach instead of the
meteg. (We are currently debating the status of this munach from a
musical standpoint.) This is the natural/default way to have a zakef
katon on a word.
B-1) However, IF the PRIOR word is conjunctive (or disjunctive but on
a lower level than the zakef) then it will only receive a munach IF
there is at least one syllable in-between the prior word's accent and
the munach. (Similar to the concept of nasog achor, we don't want two
tunes bumping up against each other.)
(As an aside this is further proof from Hanau that the munach is to be
"sung".)
B-2) IF there is no such syllable in-between, the word receives a
meteg and not a munach.
B-3) IF there is no prior word that is conjunctive (including the
first word of a pasuk, such as v'ah-hav-ta), it will get the munach
(again, only if the word can receive a meteg).
C) IF the word cannot receive a meteg and the prior word is
conjunctive (again, also disjunctive but on a lower level than the
zakef) then it gets a stand-alone zakef katon with no meteg or munach.
D) IF the word cannot receive a meteg and there is NO prior word that
is conjunctive THEN:
IF it has ANY the following patterns of syllables:
1) 4 tenuos or more (no shva na)
2) Shva Na and 3 tenuos
3) Shva Na, Tenua, Shva Na, Tenua
THEN the word receives a pashta-zakef koton (aka Metigah). (Note that
we count from the spot of the ta'am itself and work backwards to the
beginning of the word when counting tenuos).
ELSE:
E) IF everything in Rule D applies EXCEPT it doesn't have any of those
syllable patterns (i.e. it's a shorter word) THEN it recieves a zakef-
gadol.
For your reading pleasure, and because we live for this stuff, I
present examples of each case:
A) ויאמרו (Bereishis 18:5) - fit to receive a meteg, so gets a munach
B-1) חק-עולם לדרתיכם (Vayikra 6:11) - prior word lower-level
disjunctive, at least one syllable in-between, so munach
B-2) את האליה (Vayikra 7:3) - prior word conjunctive, no syllables in-
between, so meteg
B-3) ואהבת (Devarim 6:5) - first word in the posuk, fit to receive a
meteg, so munach
C) לא תאפה חמץ (Vayikra 6:10) - prior word lower-level disjunctive,
cannot receive a meteg, so stand-alone zakef katon.
D) Ex. 1 - ואבני-שהם (Shemos 35:9) - shva na followed by three tenuos
D) Ex. 2 - ולך-לך (Bereishis 22:2) - shva na, tenua, shva na, tenua
E) Ex. 1 - אבני-שהם (Shemos 25:7) - only 3 syllable from ta'am and
back
E) Ex. 2 - ואבימלך (Bereishis 20:4) - doesn't have the correct
syllable pattern
Hope that helps.
gets a zakef katon with meteg vs. zakef katon with munach vs. stand-
alone zakef katon vs. zakef gadol vs. pashta-zakef gadol (metigah).
There's been some speculation on here as to why certain words get one
or the other and some suggestions have been made, but this is how the
rules are laid out by Hanau.
The first thing to note is that all of these notes are on the same
level with respect to punctuation; they are all equal in stature as
mafsikim.
If a word needs to receive a zakef, then:
A) IF the word can receive a meteg, we place a munach instead of the
meteg. (We are currently debating the status of this munach from a
musical standpoint.) This is the natural/default way to have a zakef
katon on a word.
B-1) However, IF the PRIOR word is conjunctive (or disjunctive but on
a lower level than the zakef) then it will only receive a munach IF
there is at least one syllable in-between the prior word's accent and
the munach. (Similar to the concept of nasog achor, we don't want two
tunes bumping up against each other.)
(As an aside this is further proof from Hanau that the munach is to be
"sung".)
B-2) IF there is no such syllable in-between, the word receives a
meteg and not a munach.
B-3) IF there is no prior word that is conjunctive (including the
first word of a pasuk, such as v'ah-hav-ta), it will get the munach
(again, only if the word can receive a meteg).
C) IF the word cannot receive a meteg and the prior word is
conjunctive (again, also disjunctive but on a lower level than the
zakef) then it gets a stand-alone zakef katon with no meteg or munach.
D) IF the word cannot receive a meteg and there is NO prior word that
is conjunctive THEN:
IF it has ANY the following patterns of syllables:
1) 4 tenuos or more (no shva na)
2) Shva Na and 3 tenuos
3) Shva Na, Tenua, Shva Na, Tenua
THEN the word receives a pashta-zakef koton (aka Metigah). (Note that
we count from the spot of the ta'am itself and work backwards to the
beginning of the word when counting tenuos).
ELSE:
E) IF everything in Rule D applies EXCEPT it doesn't have any of those
syllable patterns (i.e. it's a shorter word) THEN it recieves a zakef-
gadol.
For your reading pleasure, and because we live for this stuff, I
present examples of each case:
A) ויאמרו (Bereishis 18:5) - fit to receive a meteg, so gets a munach
B-1) חק-עולם לדרתיכם (Vayikra 6:11) - prior word lower-level
disjunctive, at least one syllable in-between, so munach
B-2) את האליה (Vayikra 7:3) - prior word conjunctive, no syllables in-
between, so meteg
B-3) ואהבת (Devarim 6:5) - first word in the posuk, fit to receive a
meteg, so munach
C) לא תאפה חמץ (Vayikra 6:10) - prior word lower-level disjunctive,
cannot receive a meteg, so stand-alone zakef katon.
D) Ex. 1 - ואבני-שהם (Shemos 35:9) - shva na followed by three tenuos
D) Ex. 2 - ולך-לך (Bereishis 22:2) - shva na, tenua, shva na, tenua
E) Ex. 1 - אבני-שהם (Shemos 25:7) - only 3 syllable from ta'am and
back
E) Ex. 2 - ואבימלך (Bereishis 20:4) - doesn't have the correct
syllable pattern
Hope that helps.
Sammy Noe
Jun 10, 2010, 4:47:48 AM6/10/10
to lei...@googlegroups.com
Hi Mark
Thanks for this.
Several weeks ago, before Mahpach was nehpach, I posted a list of rules compiled by the author of the Shai Lamoireh Chumash in his leining sefer, which was a quite a bit less complicated.
The problems with both these lists are a) there is still no reason given as to the change of note shapes, and b) no indication is given by them, or anyone else, as to a possible different sound (which I myself would oppose, and I now do my sh'nayim mikro with all three having the same sound, and the munach in the same word as its zokef kotton as no more than the half stress meseg it replaces).
And another, sideshow of a question: why is the kadmo in the kadmo koton word given the name metiga, what's wrong with not making things more complex?
Kind regards Sammy Noe 07723 018821 samof...@yahoo.co.uk --- On Wed, 9/6/10, MG <markgi...@yahoo.com> wrote: |
|
JECg...@aol.com
Jun 10, 2010, 5:26:27 AM6/10/10
to lei...@googlegroups.com
Sammy,
I am relatively new to the group. Would appreciate it if you could
send -- just to me, not the whole group -- your previously posted list of
rules by Shai Lamoireh.
Thanks,
Ephraim
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to leining+u...@googlegroups.com.
AMK Judaica
Jun 10, 2010, 7:53:19 AM6/10/10
to lei...@googlegroups.com
SAMMY:
"why is the kadmo in the kadmo koton word given the name metiga, what's wrong with not making things more complex?"
because it's not a kadmo
(and i don't metigah is it's name, but rather an indication of its stress value, i.e., there is none)
kol tuv,
ari kinsberg
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 01:47:48 -0700
From: samof...@yahoo.co.uk
Subject: Re: [leining] Zakef Rules
To: lei...@googlegroups.com
(and i don't metigah is it's name, but rather an indication of its stress value, i.e., there is none)
kol tuv,
ari kinsberg
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 01:47:48 -0700
From: samof...@yahoo.co.uk
Subject: Re: [leining] Zakef Rules
To: lei...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to leining+u...@googlegroups.com.
The New Busy is not the old busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox. Get started.
MG
Jun 10, 2010, 9:09:27 AM6/10/10
to leining
Sammy:
I, too, would love to see the rules that the Shai Lamoreh lays out;
can you please post publicly? I realize that my list is complex, but
this is how Hanau lays it out and it sufficiently covers every case.
Now on to your comments:
> The problems with both these lists are a) there is still no reason given as to the change of note shapes, and b) no indication is given by them, or anyone else, as to a possible different sound (which I myself would oppose, and I now do my sh'nayim mikro with all three having the same sound, and the munach in the same word as its zokef kotton as no more than the half stress meseg it replaces). <
I don't know what you mean by "a reason for the change of note
shapes". These ta'amim all have different sounds, wouldn't that
require a differently-shaped note to differentiate? Can you be more
specific? If you are referring to munach-ZQ vs. meteg-ZQ, the note
change makes sense if you assume they are sung differently.
As I have posted before, Hanau is very clear that the munach on the
"munach-ZQ" is to be sung, unlike the meteg-ZQ. I would urge you to
click on the link and read it. I respect your right to disagree and
lein it however you want; I simply ask for a source.
I, too, would love to see the rules that the Shai Lamoreh lays out;
can you please post publicly? I realize that my list is complex, but
this is how Hanau lays it out and it sufficiently covers every case.
Now on to your comments:
> The problems with both these lists are a) there is still no reason given as to the change of note shapes, and b) no indication is given by them, or anyone else, as to a possible different sound (which I myself would oppose, and I now do my sh'nayim mikro with all three having the same sound, and the munach in the same word as its zokef kotton as no more than the half stress meseg it replaces). <
shapes". These ta'amim all have different sounds, wouldn't that
require a differently-shaped note to differentiate? Can you be more
specific? If you are referring to munach-ZQ vs. meteg-ZQ, the note
change makes sense if you assume they are sung differently.
As I have posted before, Hanau is very clear that the munach on the
"munach-ZQ" is to be sung, unlike the meteg-ZQ. I would urge you to
click on the link and read it. I respect your right to disagree and
lein it however you want; I simply ask for a source.
Sammy Noe
Jun 10, 2010, 9:25:54 AM6/10/10
to lei...@googlegroups.com
Hi Ari
Below is what I wrote in the pre-nehpach days, around the end of May 2010.
What you will read is a my translation - I would urge you to go out and buy the sefer for yourself, as it has lots of other good stuff in it.
However, I'm now even less sure about it than I was then!
"The Sefer Ta'amei Hamikro, written by R Shmuel Weinfeld, published by Eshkol - which he co-owned at the time - in 1980, says, amongst other things, as follows:
If a word has an early - but not first - syllable which would ordinarily attract a messeg, that messeg is subsituted by a munach; also there must be an open syllable between the "messeg"/munach and the full stress.
I think it can be safely assumed that the prior word will not have had a munach underneath it, just a pashto/yesiv.
Please look at the following examples: Deut 11:17, Deut11:21; Gen 18:5.
The sign that comes before the kotton that looks like a kadmo/pashto, is not a singing note, he says, but comes to replace the ga'ayo (messeg, in his bracket); he says that some authorities call it a "makel" - though I have now seen it described, by R' Wolf Heidenheim, no less, as a "mesigoh" (so that'll need some further examination from me!).
This sign will occur, he says, when the second syllable is closed, and there is still a following syllable prior to the kotton.
The examples he brings have got me completely muxed ip, as there appears to be a flexibility in counting the second syllable; cf Gen 18:18, Ex 35:9, Lev 7:8,Deut 29:11.
If the second syllable is immediately next to the stress syllable, or if that second syllable is open, then the stress syllable will carry a zokef godoil: cf Gen 16:16, Gen 26:26, Num 26:38.
If you require a much more comprehensive excursus into the subject, R Heidenheim's Mishp'tei Hat'omim, early on in Sha'ar Beis Perek Alef, could well take up a complete summer Shabbos afternoon!" |
--- On Thu, 10/6/10, MG <markgi...@yahoo.com> wrote: |
|
Sammy Noe
Jun 10, 2010, 1:37:09 PM6/10/10
to lei...@googlegroups.com
"I don't know what you mean by "a reason for the change of note
shapes". These ta'amim all have different sounds, wouldn't that require a differently-shaped note to differentiate? Can you be more specific?" |
Hi Ari
I will now address myself to this.
When a mahpach, munach (before a zarko) and dargo change their shapes into a mercho, we all know the reason why.
I cannot currently be persuaded that there are specific reasons extant as to why the zokef kotton gets changed to a kadmo kotton and/or to a zokef godoil. There may be specific situations in which the changes are consistently made, but I've not yet seen why?
But, in all these literally hundreds of occasions, I also see no reason why the singing of the sound has to change, as every single adjusted note shape's word performs exactly the same function as it had before the change.
Look at B'raishis 1:2 - the mercho performs the mahpach function, and should be sung the same as a mahpach; look at Vayikro 10:12, just the mercho, not the other discussable themes there - the mercho performs the function of the munach and is sung as a munach; how about Vayikro 10:16 - it is because of the other just mentioned two - plus the fact that a mercho before the soif possuk sounds exactly the same as a munach before the asnachto - that I have sung that mercho in exactly the same way as I do the dargo.
Because, to me, the overriding system is that the replacing note has exactly the same function within the phrase as the replaced note: the shape changes, NOT the sound.
I have not seen any logic to sing the munach as a note where the zokef kotton occupies the same word, whatever anyone - even R' Shloimoih Zalman Henne - says, and even though I wish I had a tithe of his knowledge.
My bottom line is that every replacing note replicates the sound of the note it replaces.
Therefore, because we can see from so many different authorities that the zokef kotton, zokeif godoil, and kadmo kotton are merely replacements of each other, I have, for the last few years, been doing my sh'nayim mikro with just one sound, that of the zokef kotton: I have not yet dared go into the public arena with it: I have enough trouble having my mercho. tvir discussed with me almost every month since January 1979, when I first did it! |
MG
Jun 10, 2010, 3:22:19 PM6/10/10
to leining
> When a mahpach, munach (before a zarko) and dargo change their shapes into a mercho, we all know the reason why.
Isn't the "reason" to accomodate syllables and easier flow of the
sound? That's the same "reason" for changing a ZQ into a metigah, as
I say in my "complicated" post.
I also don't get why, according to you, a note would be "replaced" and
still be read the same way as the original. Why replace it then?
In Bereishis 1:2 for example, we can't have a mahpach, since musically
we need a syllable between mahpach and pashta, and the first word
can't be nasog achor. Singing it as a mahpach defeats the entire
purpose. The mercha is a shorter note and better accomodates the two
words from a musial standpoint.
Wondering if you also do not differentiate between Gershayim and Azla-
Geresh and Kadma V'eazla? Same tune for all three? Afterall, they
all "replace" each other.
How about the Shalsheles, which comes to replace a Segol?
You'll forgive me if I view your standpoint as somewhat radical and
not in line with any tradition. Were you taught this?
On Jun 10, 1:37 pm, Sammy Noe <samoffp...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> "I don't know what you mean by "a reason for the change of note
> shapes". These ta'amim all have different sounds, wouldn't that
> require a differently-shaped note to differentiate? Can you be more
> specific?"
>
> Hi Ari
>
> I will now address myself to this.
>
> When a mahpach, munach (before a zarko) and dargo change their shapes into a mercho, we all know the reason why.
>
> I cannot currently be persuaded that there are specific reasons extant as to why the zokef kotton gets changed to a kadmo kotton and/or to a zokef godoil. There may be specific situations in which the changes are consistently made, but I've not yet seen why?
>
> But, in all these literally hundreds of occasions, I also see no reason why the singing of the sound has to change, as every single adjusted note shape's word performs exactly the same function as it had before the change.
>
> Look at B'raishis 1:2 - the mercho performs the mahpach function, and should be sung the same as a mahpach; look at Vayikro 10:12, just the mercho, not the other discussable themes there - the mercho performs the function of the munach and is sung as a munach; how about Vayikro 10:16 - it is because of the other just mentioned two - plus the fact that a mercho before the soif possuk sounds exactly the same as a munach before the asnachto - that I have sung that mercho in exactly the same way as I do the dargo.
>
> Because, to me, the overriding system is that the replacing note has exactly the same function within the phrase as the replaced note: the shape changes, NOT the sound.
>
> I have not seen any logic to sing the munach as a note where the zokef kotton occupies the same word, whatever anyone - even R' Shloimoih Zalman Henne - says, and even though I wish I had a tithe of his knowledge.
>
> My bottom line is that every replacing note replicates the sound of the note it replaces.
>
> Therefore, because we can see from so many different authorities that the zokef kotton, zokeif godoil, and kadmo kotton are merely replacements of each other, I have, for the last few years, been doing my sh'nayim mikro with just one sound, that of the zokef kotton: I have not yet dared go into the public arena with it: I have enough trouble having my mercho. tvir discussed with me almost every month since January 1979, when I first did it!
>
> Kind regards
>
> Sammy Noe
> 07723 018821
>
> --- On Thu, 10/6/10, MG <markginsb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> From: MG <markginsb...@yahoo.com>
> Subject: [leining] Re: Zakef Rules
> To: "leining" <lei...@googlegroups.com>
> Date: Thursday, 10 June, 2010, 1:09
>
> Sammy:
> I, too, would love to see the rules that the Shai Lamoreh lays out;
> can you please post publicly? I realize that my list is complex, but
> this is how Hanau lays it out and it sufficiently covers every case.
>
> Now on to your comments:
>
> > The problems with both these lists are a) there is still no reason given as to the change of note shapes, and b) no indication is given by them, or anyone else, as to a possible different sound (which I myself would oppose, and I now do my sh'nayim mikro with all three having the same sound, and the munach in the same word as its zokef kotton as no more than the half stress meseg it replaces). <
>
> I don't know what you mean by "a reason for the change of note
> shapes". These ta'amim all have different sounds, wouldn't that
> require a differently-shaped note to differentiate? Can you be more
> specific? If you are referring to munach-ZQ vs. meteg-ZQ, the note
> change makes sense if you assume they are sung differently.
> As I have posted before, Hanau is very clear that the munach on the
> "munach-ZQ" is to be sung, unlike the meteg-ZQ. I would urge you to
> click on the link and read it. I respect your right to disagree and
> lein it however you want; I simply ask for a source.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leining" group.
> To post to this group, send email to lei...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to leining+u...@googlegroups.com.
> From: MG <markginsb...@yahoo.com>
> Subject: [leining] Re: Zakef Rules
> To: "leining" <lei...@googlegroups.com>
> Date: Thursday, 10 June, 2010, 1:09
>
> Sammy:
> I, too, would love to see the rules that the Shai Lamoreh lays out;
> can you please post publicly? I realize that my list is complex, but
> this is how Hanau lays it out and it sufficiently covers every case.
>
> Now on to your comments:
>
> > The problems with both these lists are a) there is still no reason given as to the change of note shapes, and b) no indication is given by them, or anyone else, as to a possible different sound (which I myself would oppose, and I now do my sh'nayim mikro with all three having the same sound, and the munach in the same word as its zokef kotton as no more than the half stress meseg it replaces). <
>
> I don't know what you mean by "a reason for the change of note
> shapes". These ta'amim all have different sounds, wouldn't that
> require a differently-shaped note to differentiate? Can you be more
> specific? If you are referring to munach-ZQ vs. meteg-ZQ, the note
> change makes sense if you assume they are sung differently.
> As I have posted before, Hanau is very clear that the munach on the
> "munach-ZQ" is to be sung, unlike the meteg-ZQ. I would urge you to
> click on the link and read it. I respect your right to disagree and
> lein it however you want; I simply ask for a source.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leining" group.
> To post to this group, send email to lei...@googlegroups.com.
Sammy Noe
Jun 10, 2010, 4:46:53 PM6/10/10
to lei...@googlegroups.com
Mark |
|
"In Bereishis 1:2 for example, we can't have a mahpach, since musically
we need a syllable between mahpach and pashta" |
It has nothing to do with music, it has to do with ordinary breathing and speaking/reading, and we have the same problem in davening (which is primarily a speaking/reading exercise, would you not say), where no singing takes place: we say "she'OHso li kol tzorci" because nosoig ochoir operates; we also say a short bit later on "machoVEIR ro" and "mishoCHEIN ro" where nosoig ochoir will not apply.
Just plain, ordinary breathing and speaking/reading, and not a single musical note in sight.
And I am slightly military about this: the quicker students, teachers, authors, and essay writers get away from talking about the music in the te'amim in favour of the puctuation they perform - and that is, to me, 85-15 ratio - the easier matters will find themselves. |
Kind regards Sammy Noe 07723 018821 |
|
|
|
|
|
MG
Jun 10, 2010, 5:11:39 PM6/10/10
to leining
By "musically" I of course mean "rhythmically". I'm not getting hung
up on the actual tune. You are pulling out one word from a post in
which I am clearly discussing flow of sound and syllables. Let's not
change the subject.
I'm simply responding to yout statement that "I cannot currently be
saying that those "reasons" are the same "reasons" as "When a mahpach,
munach (before a zarko) and dargo change their shapes into a mercho" -
to accomodate easier speaking/reading.
So do you lain the shalsheles? Or the gershayim? Sorry if that
borders on musical. I just want to know how far you take your theory.
On Jun 10, 4:46 pm, Sammy Noe <samoffp...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Mark
>
> "In Bereishis 1:2 for example, we can't have a mahpach, since musically
> we need a syllable between mahpach and pashta"
>
> It has nothing to do with music, it has to do with ordinary breathing and speaking/reading, and we have the same problem in davening (which is primarily a speaking/reading exercise, would you not say), where no singing takes place: we say "she'OHso li kol tzorci" because nosoig ochoir operates; we also say a short bit later on "machoVEIR ro" and "mishoCHEIN ro" where nosoig ochoir will not apply.
>
> Just plain, ordinary breathing and speaking/reading, and not a single musical note in sight.
>
> And I am slightly military about this: the quicker students, teachers, authors, and essay writers get away from talking about the music in the te'amim in favour of the puctuation they perform - and that is, to me, 85-15 ratio - the easier matters will find themselves.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Sammy Noe
> 07723 018821
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to leining+u...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/leining?hl=en.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
up on the actual tune. You are pulling out one word from a post in
which I am clearly discussing flow of sound and syllables. Let's not
change the subject.
I'm simply responding to yout statement that "I cannot currently be
persuaded that there are specific reasons extant as to why the zokef
kotton gets changed to a kadmo kotton and/or to a zokef godoil" by
saying that those "reasons" are the same "reasons" as "When a mahpach,
munach (before a zarko) and dargo change their shapes into a mercho" -
to accomodate easier speaking/reading.
So do you lain the shalsheles? Or the gershayim? Sorry if that
borders on musical. I just want to know how far you take your theory.
On Jun 10, 4:46 pm, Sammy Noe <samoffp...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Mark
>
> "In Bereishis 1:2 for example, we can't have a mahpach, since musically
> we need a syllable between mahpach and pashta"
>
> It has nothing to do with music, it has to do with ordinary breathing and speaking/reading, and we have the same problem in davening (which is primarily a speaking/reading exercise, would you not say), where no singing takes place: we say "she'OHso li kol tzorci" because nosoig ochoir operates; we also say a short bit later on "machoVEIR ro" and "mishoCHEIN ro" where nosoig ochoir will not apply.
>
> Just plain, ordinary breathing and speaking/reading, and not a single musical note in sight.
>
> And I am slightly military about this: the quicker students, teachers, authors, and essay writers get away from talking about the music in the te'amim in favour of the puctuation they perform - and that is, to me, 85-15 ratio - the easier matters will find themselves.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Sammy Noe
> 07723 018821
> > For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/leining?hl=en.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leining" group.
> To post to this group, send email to lei...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to leining+u...@googlegroups.com.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leining" group.
> To post to this group, send email to lei...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/leining?hl=en.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Sammy Noe
Jun 11, 2010, 4:03:12 AM6/11/10
to lei...@googlegroups.com
Hi Mark
Insofar as I say that the music of leining is of insignificant importance compared with its punctuation function, I still insist that the music is done absolutely accurately.
So, your question about shalseles/gershayim is one that I thank you for reminding me about.
In terms of consistency, I'll have to give this considerable thought.
Could you please tell me the circumstances in which the shalsheles replaces the gershayim? And why? Kind regards and Shabbos Sholoim |
|
|
|
|
|
|
AMK Judaica
Jun 11, 2010, 7:01:24 AM6/11/10
to lei...@googlegroups.com
SAMMY:
shalshelet replaces segol (not gershayim) in the even that the segol is on the first word of the pasuk
shabbat shalom,
ari kinsberg
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 08:03:12 +0000
From: samof...@yahoo.co.uk
Subject: [leining] Zakef Rules, Shalsheles/gershayim
To: lei...@googlegroups.com
shalshelet replaces segol (not gershayim) in the even that the segol is on the first word of the pasuk
shabbat shalom,
ari kinsberg
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 08:03:12 +0000
From: samof...@yahoo.co.uk
Subject: [leining] Zakef Rules, Shalsheles/gershayim
To: lei...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to leining+u...@googlegroups.com.
Hotmail is redefining busy with tools for the New Busy. Get more from your inbox. See how.
MG
Jun 11, 2010, 7:40:52 AM6/11/10
to leining
Yes. Shalsheles replaces Segol.
Gershayim replaces Geresh when the word is milrah.
Yetiv replaces Pashta (although it's not clear to me those are sung
differently anyway).
Tipcha can replace etnachta.
I'm sure there others. I know there are cases whem an entire clause is
replaced.
AMK Judaica wrote:
> SAMMY:
>
>
>
> shalshelet replaces segol (not gershayim) in the even that the segol is on the first word of the pasuk
>
>
>
> shabbat shalom,
>
> ari kinsberg
>
>
>
Gershayim replaces Geresh when the word is milrah.
Yetiv replaces Pashta (although it's not clear to me those are sung
differently anyway).
Tipcha can replace etnachta.
I'm sure there others. I know there are cases whem an entire clause is
replaced.
AMK Judaica wrote:
> SAMMY:
>
>
>
> shalshelet replaces segol (not gershayim) in the even that the segol is on the first word of the pasuk
>
>
>
> shabbat shalom,
>
> ari kinsberg
>
>
>
> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to leining+u...@googlegroups.com.
> > > For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/leining?hl=en.
> >
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leining" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to lei...@googlegroups.com.
> >
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leining" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to lei...@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to leining+u...@googlegroups.com.
> > For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/leining?hl=en.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leining" group.
> To post to this group, send email to lei...@googlegroups.com.
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leining" group.
> To post to this group, send email to lei...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to leining+u...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leining?hl=en.
>
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leining" group.
> To post to this group, send email to lei...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to leining+u...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leining?hl=en.
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leining?hl=en.
>
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leining" group.
> To post to this group, send email to lei...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to leining+u...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leining?hl=en.
>
> Hotmail is redefining busy with tools for the New Busy. Get more from your inbox.
> http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_2
Matthew Pearlman
Jun 11, 2010, 11:52:45 AM6/11/10
to lei...@googlegroups.com
And you could go even further than this: mercha, tipcha, mercha, sof
pasuk can be replaced by munach, zakef, tipcha sof pasuk, eg with the
spies at beginning of shelach lecha, depending on the length of the
names.
pasuk can be replaced by munach, zakef, tipcha sof pasuk, eg with the
spies at beginning of shelach lecha, depending on the length of the
names.
Is the suggestion that these should all be sung the same way?
Matthew
Lane Clark & Peacock LLP
30 Old Burlington Street
London W1S 3NN
Telephone: +44 (0)20 7439 2266
Fax: +44 (0)20 7439 0183
Email: mailto:enqu...@lcp.uk.com
<http://www.lcp.uk.com>
Lane Clark & Peacock LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales with registered number OC301436. LCP is a registered trademark in the UK (Regd. TM No 2315442) and in the EU (Regd. TM No 002935583). All partners are members of Lane Clark & Peacock LLP. A list of members' names is available for inspection at 30 Old Burlington Street, London W1S 3NN, the firm's principal place of business and registered office. The firm is regulated by the Institute of Actuaries in respect of a range of investment business activities.
This work is provided for your sole use in the capacity specified to assist your decisions. It is confidential to you and should not be provided to any third party.
Third parties (ie non-addressees) should be aware that this information has been provided primarily for your benefit and we do not accept any liability to any third party that might use or rely on this material. This applies no matter how our work has been provided to them (with or without our consent) unless the third party has asked us to confirm our liability to them and we have done so in writing.
The calculations in this work use methods and assumptions for the purposes described. It should not be assumed that the figures in this work are appropriate to assist with any other decision or any other possible use of this work.
If you are not the intended recipient of this email, please contact us quoting the name of the sender and the addressee and then delete it from your system.
Please note that we do not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan the email and attachments (if any).
MG
Jun 11, 2010, 1:15:04 PM6/11/10
to leining
Exactly. I think that's what we're trying to get at. It was
suggested that a "replacement" ta'am does not change the tune of the
original; we are arguing somewhat of a reductio ad absurdum, that to
consistently follow this would change too much of accepted practice to
be palatable.
On Jun 11, 11:52 am, "Matthew Pearlman" <Matthew.Pearl...@lcp.uk.com>
wrote:
> > From: samoffp...@yahoo.co.uk
> athttp://groups.google.com/group/leining?hl=en.-Hide quoted text -
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
suggested that a "replacement" ta'am does not change the tune of the
original; we are arguing somewhat of a reductio ad absurdum, that to
consistently follow this would change too much of accepted practice to
be palatable.
On Jun 11, 11:52 am, "Matthew Pearlman" <Matthew.Pearl...@lcp.uk.com>
wrote:
> > Subject: [leining] Zakef Rules, Shalsheles/gershayim
> > To: lei...@googlegroups.com
>
> > Hi Mark
>
> > Insofar as I say that the music of leining is of insignificant
> importance compared with its punctuation function, I still insist that
> the music is done absolutely accurately.
>
> > So, your question about shalseles/gershayim is one that I thank you
> for reminding me about.
>
> > In terms of consistency, I'll have to give this considerable thought.
>
> > Could you please tell me the circumstances in which the shalsheles
> replaces the gershayim? And why?
>
> > Kind regards and Shabbos Sholoim
>
> > Sammy Noe
> > 07723 018821
> > To: lei...@googlegroups.com
>
> > Hi Mark
>
> > Insofar as I say that the music of leining is of insignificant
> importance compared with its punctuation function, I still insist that
> the music is done absolutely accurately.
>
> > So, your question about shalseles/gershayim is one that I thank you
> for reminding me about.
>
> > In terms of consistency, I'll have to give this considerable thought.
>
> > Could you please tell me the circumstances in which the shalsheles
> replaces the gershayim? And why?
>
> > Kind regards and Shabbos Sholoim
>
> > Sammy Noe
> > 07723 018821
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > --
> > You received this message
>
> ...
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > --
> > You received this message
>
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
Sammy Noe
Jun 13, 2010, 5:19:36 AM6/13/10
to lei...@googlegroups.com
reductio ad absurdum
What does this mean: I may then be able to respond.
Also, I 'd be very grateful if members could look at their notes made on Friday to see if any went to my samoffplan address, as I cannot respond from there.
Kind regards
Sammy Noe
From: MG <markgi...@yahoo.com>
To: leining <lei...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Fri, 11 June, 2010 18:15:04
Subject: [leining] Re: Zakef Rules, Shalsheles/gershayim
> leining+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
> > > > For more options, visit this group
> athttp://groups.google.com/group/leining?hl=en.
>
> > > --
> > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "leining" group.
> > > To post to this group, send email to lei...@googlegroups.com.
> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> leining+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
> > > For more options, visit this group
> athttp://groups.google.com/group/leining?hl=en.-Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > --
> > You received this message
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leining" group.
To post to this group, send email to lei...@googlegroups.com.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leining" group.
To post to this group, send email to lei...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to leining+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
Mark Symons
Jun 13, 2010, 6:07:35 PM6/13/10
to lei...@googlegroups.com
Re the shalsheles - what you may be referring to is that where a zarka-segol would otherwise be called for, but the phrase in question consists of only one word, then you get a shalsheles.
(Victor Tunkel - whose book I have referred to before - generally basing himself on the usual classic sources - says that (notwithstanding that it's pausal power is level 2) a zarka-segol comes to divide a pasuk into 3 (ie the etnachta half into 2)).
(Tunkel also discusses other "substitutions" - which is often explain why you sometimes get 2 of the same note in immediate succession, eg pashta, t'vir, zarka: eg a pashta often substitutes for a revia, where a would-be revia would be too close to a preceding one - which often leads to successive pashtas
Mark (Symons)
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages